by Mark Potts

About Me

I'm CEO of Newspeg.com, a social news-sharing platform. I've spent 20 years at the intersection of traditional and digital journalism. I've helped to invent ways to read and interact with the news and advertising on computer screens and iPads, and before that, I wrote news stories on typewriters and six-ply paper. I co-founded WashingtonPost.com and hyperlocal pioneers Backfence.com and GrowthSpur; served as editor of Philly.com; taught media entrepreneurship at the University of Maryland; and have done product-development and strategy consulting for all sorts of media and Internet companies. You can read more about me here.

January 2014

August 13, 2009

I've written before about the crazy phenomenon in which newspapers send waves of staffers to cover sports events or political conventions. This happens regardless of whether those staffers truly add much to readers' understanding of events that are being widely covered elsewhere (not to mention available on live TV or webcast). It seems kind of obvious, in these newsroom cost-cutting days, that this redundant, multi-layered coverage is a waste of resources. But that message seems to move slowly through the brains of old-line newspaper editors.

The lightbulb seems to have finally gone off at Tribune Co., the paradigm of cost-slashing, which is finally reining in its various papers' tendency to duplicate sports coverage. Apparently it dawned on Tribune's beleaguered leaders that the chain had 14 reporters, columnists and photogs at this year's Super Bowl, even though neither Super Bowl team came from a city where Tribune actually has a newspaper. Not a great use of resources. You have to wonder why it took them so long to figure this out, but good for them.

In a similar vein, the Dayton Daily News recently put out to pasture its longtime baseball writer, Hal McCoy, rather than spending $250,000 a year to have him cover the Cincinnati Reds, who hardly lack for coverage from other, cheaper sources, including the AP. McCoy may be a Hall of Famer, but it's hard to understand why the Dayton paper needs to cover a pro sports team located 50 miles away rather than, say, using that $250,000 to double down on coverage of truly local sports. (Not that that's what the money saved will probably be used for, alas.)

These are the kinds of obvious—yet obviously difficult—decisions that newspapers are long overdue to make to try to get their costs in line with the huge drop in revenue over the past couple of years. A lot of newspaper cutbacks are quite painful, but these seem to be pretty straightforward. Still, they've been a long time coming. Maybe now papers can start in on other unnecessary—but ego-satisfying—positions like, say, film and TV critics, food writers or travel or health sections. In fatter, happier times, such luxuries could sort of be forgiven. But in today's environment, editors at metro dailies have got to put their resources into (local) journalism that readers can't get anywhere else. It's amazing that that's still not obvious.

April 09, 2008

Courtesy of Online News Squared, some good news, finally, on (some) progress against the idiotic efforts by sports leagues—especially baseball—to restrict use of photos taken at games:

"Moderate" success in the negotiations between media companies and Major League Baseball over heavy-handed content rights restrictions it wanted to impose via credentials this season. MLB backing down on trying to limit online photo galleries and use of content on sibling web sites, makes things a little bearable.

More details here, from the AP Sports Editors. Good work by the editors who stood up to fight this insanity.

February 22, 2008

You can't exactly call the people who run Major League Baseball geniuses (believe me, I used to cover the baseball business). Just look at the steroids fiasco for recent proof. But in case you need more, it's at hand: Following in the idiotic tradition of the NFL and other sports leagues in attempting to control coverage, Bud Selig & Co. have imposed draconian rules on how the media can cover baseball games this season. If you're the "bearer" an MLB press pass, here are some of the new, unbearable rules:

• "While a Game is in progress, Bearer shall not transmit or aid in transmitting any Game Information on a play-by-play or pitch-by-pitch basis, more frequently than once every half-inning of play (except to report on the occasional and significant historic event)." (Sorry, bloggers, tough luck.)

• "While a Game is in progress, Bearer shall not transmit, display, or aid in transmitting or displaying, any video, audio, pictures, photographs or other non-text based accounts or descriptions of Games ... that Bearer obtains at that Game in any media." (I guess that rules out any reporting by iPhone!)

• "Any video captured within the ballpark, excluding press conferences, must be limited to 120 seconds and cannot be carried live; ... no live or taped audio or video is permitted to be captured from 45 minutes prior to a scheduled game time until that game has concluded; ... a manager’s pre-game interview or other content may not be transmitted live and audio or video transmissions of such content may be no longer than 120 seconds; ... a manager’s post-game press conference may be captured via video or audio and transmitted (and archived for up to 72 hours) on Bearer’s website but may not be carried live; and ... interviews with players, Club personnel and baseball officials may be transmitted by Bearer on its website for a maximum of 72 hours, may not be longer than 120 seconds in duration and may not include any Game highlights." (All you local TV stations and Web sites who want to do video? Forget about it.)

• Oh, and these credentialed media sites aren't allowed to display more than seven photos of each game, or display those seven pix for more than 72 hours after a game (unless linked to a story)—and "such still pictures or photographs of any Game cannot be used as part of a photo gallery, the definition of which shall be determined by the Baseball Office of the Commissioner in its sole discretion."

This is unbelievable—but maybe not, given that it comes from the people who gave us the designated hitter, juiced ball and juiced players. I guess I understand why lawyers for sports leagues want to control their product and trademarks—and protect the lucrative league-owned Web sites that increasingly are muscling in on traditional media coverage.

But at some point, MLB's leaders and other sports executives are taking their eye off the ball. Sports in this country exists primarily because the media covers it. If coverage suffers, so do ratings and attendance (just ask the NHL, the WNBA and Major League Soccer). Baseball should be welcoming the press with open arms—that's how the sport is marketed to the paying public.

Online News Squared reports that media companies apparently are pushing back on these ridiculous restrictions; as I've said before, the ultimate solution is for the media to simply announce that it won't cover the games until the restrictions are lifted. Boycott the games, editors. Simple as that. The resulting public outcry, and impact on attendance, should knock some sense into the Lords of Baseball.

Major League Baseball is uniquely protected by an exemption from federal antitrust laws. Maybe it's time that MLB understands that the press has its own unique protections in the First Amendment.

January 23, 2008

Jay Rosen's much-hyped experiment to attach beat reporters to social networks ignores an inconvenient fact: There are already reporters operating this way.

One of the best is Washington Post baseball writer Barry Svrluga, who interacts constantly with his readers via a blog, regular discussions, podcasts—even personal appearances at the regular tailgating gatherings of his devoted fans before Nationals games at RFK stadium. Yes, Svrluga's fans are so devoted that they gather in his honor offline, to celebrate the friendships created in the community that has sprung up around him online. Not too shabby. Know any other beat reporters with that kind of following? That's what an active online presence (and general excellence as a beat writer) will do for you.

That's why last summer, long before Rosen announced his social beat reporting concept, I described Svrluga as the model of the modern major beat reported.

But now Barry's fans are in mourning. That's because Svrluga has decided to transfer within the Post to the Washington Redskins beat. It's probably a promotion, but not to the Nationals fans who had created a community around their favorite baseball beat writer.

Don't believe me? Check out the 100-plus impassioned comments on this post on Svrluga's blog in which he announces his new job. These readers felt a personal connection with Svrluga, even though they probably only knew him online. At a time when readers are deserting newspapers, isn't it refreshing to come across readers who are so devoted to a beat writer?

Every editor should be pondering this phenomenon, and thinking about how to create interactive stars with surrounding communities similar to Svrluga. At Philly.com, we're lucky enough to have one of our own, The Philadelphia Inquirer's Todd Zolecki, who coincidentally also covers baseball—and blogs, answers reader questions and podcasts.

Part of the Philly.com strategy for 2008 is to create many more such communities around popular beat reporters, columnists and reviewers. These sorts of followings beget deeply devoted readers--and in this day and age, devoted readers couldn't be more valuable.

December 16, 2007

Good news: According to PaidContent and the International Herald Tribune, journalism organizations are finally banding together to fight back against the idiotic restrictions being placed on coverage by sports teams and leagues. Not sure why it took this long. But it's ludicrous that sports organizations—whose very existence owes so much to free publicity from the media—are trying to restrict journalists from doing their jobs and informing their readers and viewers about the games and their players.

Already, the new News Media Coalition has arranged boycotts of coverage of a couple of restriction-laden sporting events. I hope they continue to fight that way for coverage that benefits everyone.

July 18, 2007

Sports leagues are trying harder and harder to control how they are covered by news organizations--limiting blogging, setting time limits on how much interview footage can be broadcast or posted on web sites, etc. It's hard to believe that any of these requirements would withstand a strong First Amendment challenge, and I hope one is in the works.

But the latest nonsense in this vein really crosses the line. The National Press Photographers Association reports that "The National Football League has passed a new rule for the upcoming season that requires photographers at NFL games to wear red vests with Canon and Reebok logos on them."

Yes, you read that right. It sounds like it comes straight from The Onion or its satiric sports counterpart The Brushback. Are they kidding? What's next--requiring fans to wear matching sponsor logos in order to sit in the stands? It's disturbing enough to read that this practice actually has existed, in limited form, for some time--photogs at some sports events have been required to wear identifying "bibs" with sponsor logos, apparently. Amazing.

There's a very simple solution to this idiocy, and I hope the nation's editors have the balls to do it: Boycott coverage of the NFL until this ridiculous "rule" is lifted. Period. Coverage is oxygen for sports teams--I remember New York Yankee owner George Steinbrenner telling a group of editors, "You put the fannies in the seats." Take it away and see how long it takes the NFL's leadership to come to its senses.

June 11, 2007

There's a lot of talk about media convergence, about traditional reporters spreading their craft into new media in ways that are as facile as what they do in print. But for all the talk, there aren't enough sterling examples of beat reporters plying their trade as well--or better--in the new media as they do in the old.

I don't know Svrluga, but I'm a huge fan. Based on his output, which seems damn close to 24/7, he may be the hardest-working beat reporter in the business. By taking advantage of multiple media, he gives Nats fans something close to blanket coverage of the team, as well as interacting on a constant basis with his readers in the blog and chats. Svrluga openly solicits story ideas from readers and regularly uses the blog and discussion to respond to reader requests for information about the team that he might have left out of a story. There are many other blogging beat reporters, of course, but I think few are serving their readers as well as Svrluga.

In fact, it might be argued that Svrluga's best coverage is taking place in his new-media endeavors. He seems more willing to take chances or to dig deep in the blog and discussions, partly because he has unlimited space and partly because those media, because they're more informal, seem to melt away some of the more conservative conventions of standard daily reporting. (This also seems to happen in some of the Post's other reporter-driven online discussions, which seem more freewheeling than the paper's traditional journalism.) Svrluga's blog and discussions seem to have more inside information, speculation and insight than even his first-rate game stories. You really feel like you're getting inside dope in a way you rarely do from even a well-written, well-reported conventional story.

This makes you wonder, at some point, whether the tail is wagging the dog—or even which medium should be his primary focus. Is Svrluga a print reporter who blogs? Or is he morphing into something new, a blogger and discussion leader who also happens to write a daily print story?

It's an interesting question, and it's at the heart of successful convergence: What's a beat reporter's primary product? The traditional kneejerk reaction is to say it's the printed story, but the evidence is starting to suggest otherwise. And that's a good thing. Because in fully using all the media available to him, Svrluga--like other reporters who are diving deep into these new media forms--is pointing the way toward a new, more comprehensive, more interesting form of beat reporting. It can't happen soon enough.